Wikipedia:Third opinion

This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project.

"WP:3" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta.

Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.

This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.

How to list a dispute

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

1. Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
2. Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
3. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Example entry:

# [[Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up]]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~

Example displayed:

1. Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here.

1. Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Images A dispute over how large the images in the article can be, and still be okay under fair use. 03:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Talk:United States Agency for International Development difference of opinion on 3rd footnote and sentence before it. Citation is to a non-neutral publication and several years old. Seek 3rd neutral opinion. Thank you! 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
3. User talk:Kbdank71#Agatha Christie category dispute; see also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Question of whether the category structure integrity should be preserved after a category delete resolution summary. Thanks a lot in advance. 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Syntheses Dispute about whether different standards apply to sources depending on their point of view.--15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Talk:Big N' Tasty#McDLT. Dispute over creating new article McD.L.T. because the product may or may not be the same as the Big N' Tasty. 03:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Talk:Foxy Brown (rapper)#Merge "Controversies" with other sections? Discussion. Whether or not to merge "Controversies" with the other sections. 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Talk:Hot Summer (song). A dispute over classification. An editor by the name of Noboyo added the song Hot Summer by Monrose to a category list I created, . I happen to KNOW that this song isn't house music. Noboyo "cited" as a "source" the "fact" that one of the groups singers called it house music (?). In any event, I have been in contact with an administrator by the name of Ultraexactzz who seems to have already sided with Noboyo -- even AFTER he/she told me to talk it out. Noboyo has made NO effort to discuss this matter, and I am seriously considering Arbitration. A third party opinion would be appreciated. 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
• Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} in a new section on the talk page of the article.
• For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.
• When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort. If the article has a {{3O}} tag, also remember to remove it from the article page.